MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon; glad you were all able to make it
in. Let me begin with two statements and I'll take your questions.
One, the President yesterday spoke with Crown Prince Abdallah of Saudi
Arabia. The President wished him well on the successful conclusion of
the Hadj. They also talked about the importance of continuing to make
progress toward peace in the Middle East. And they discussed the war
on terror and also the threat that Saddam Hussein presents in the
region.

South Korea, the President extends his deepest condolences and
those of the American people to the families and the loved ones of
those who perished in the subway fire in South Korea. The President
wishes a speedy and full recovery to those who were injured. Our
prayers are with the people of South Korea during this time of sorrow.

MR. FLEISCHER: On the question of anthrax from two Octobers ago,
no new information has come to light. So the investigation remains
where you last heard it left.

Vis-a-vis Osama bin Laden, there remains a worldwide hunt out --
not only for Osama bin Laden, but for all the top lieutenants of the al
Qaeda organization. The hunt has been successful in many places, but
obviously there remain people who are at large. Given the fact that
the tapes are viewed to be reliably from Osama bin Laden, it would
indicate that Osama bin Laden is alive. We still have not gotten a
final conclusive report. But all indications are that those tapes are
genuine --or the tape is genuine, I should put it in the singular.

Q U.N. Security Council resolution -- diplomats at the Security
Council have given us to understand that we might have a resolution as
early as Wednesday, that is to say a draft presented by America and
Britain. But you were indicating this morning that we might not see
one until next week, if at all. Are we backing away from this idea?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, what I said this morning was it could be this
week; it could be next. Obviously, Wednesday is part of this week. So
the timing remains to be determined. We continue to consult with
allies about the exact moment that is most propitious to move forward.
It could be this week; it could be next.

Q If it looks like such a resolution would not pass, would the
administration decide, forget about it, we're just not going to go that
route?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as the President said, we would welcome the
chance for the United Nations to speak out on this matter. The
President has made it clear that as far as the United States is
concerned, it is not mandatory, but it is something that we continue to
talk to our allies about.

Q One last thing on the resolution, if I may. One thing that
1441 lacked that, I presume you would find useful, was some sort of a
timetable, a deadline. Is that the main issue, in terms of deciding
whether or not to seek such a resolution?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm just not going to entertain any guessing or
speculation about the language of it. That remains something that
we're talking about in private with the allies.

Q Without talking about language, what would you have to put in
a second resolution to make it more palatable to the other members of
the Security Council, beyond the U.S. and Britain?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the key thing that the President wants to
have in there is that it enforces resolution 1441, making clear that
final meant final and serious consequences means serious consequences.

Q But what do you add to a second resolution to get the rest of
the Council to go along?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, those are the parameters the President has
set. And the President will leave the wordsmithing to the diplomats
who have a history of working these types of issues through. And we
will see what the future holds.

Q Regarding the hang up right now with the Turks over U.S.
troops being able to use Turkey. Is the President offended any way
that the hang up seems to be over money? Does he think that this is a
matter of principle, and money shouldn't enter into it?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President understands that Turkey is in
a difficult position and Turkey has some important decisions to make.
The President respects the government of Turkey and the people of
Turkey. The United States and Turkey have a long history, going back
decades, of being strategic partners. And we will see ultimately what
Turkey decides and what the final outcome is.

Q Is the President optimistic that there will be an agreement?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President is waiting to find out what
the final determinations will be. I would not characterize him one way
or another.

Q Would that be a blow if there is no agreement?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, let's wait and see what happens. And we'll
take it in turn.

Q Ari, what gives you confidence to dismiss North Korea's
threats as predictable and not cause for alarm, when so often you seize
on words by Saddam to cite as evidence as a warlike intent? Would it
take for North Korean threats to be taken seriously?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I just remind you that this is not the
first time that North Korea has used strident rhetoric as a diplomatic
tool. North Korea does have a history that they've repeated numerous
times in numerous ways of using strident rhetoric as a way to blackmail
other nations into providing economic or other benefits to the North
Koreans.

What the President has said is that that method of doing business
will no longer be effective. The President is going to continue to
work through the diplomatic approach with China, Russia and South Korea
and Japan.

Q Is there anything the President can point to as a sign of
progress that that diplomatic approach is working --since it's been
several months now.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the President understands -- and so
do the nations in the region -- that when you make the decision to
pursue diplomacy, diplomacy takes time. And time is not in North
Korea's favor. North Korea has a very backward economy. North Korea
has people who are starving. North Korea deserves -- the people of
North Korea deserve their place among the other nations of the world
with a good future, an economy that grows and advances.

And all you need to do is take a look at the tremendous difference
between South Korea's progress and North Korea's progress. And they
both started out at the same point after the Korean War. And South
Korea, because of the government that it has, the democracy that it
has, has been able to feed its people, and have a booming economy that
provides jobs and opportunities. Now, North Korea -- there's a novel
that was written some time ago called, "Time Forward" -- in North Korea
it's Time Backward.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, these are technical matters. These are
decisions or analyses that are made by technical people who use voice
patterns and other information that they have to compare electronically
the patterns of one voice to the patterns of something that is known in
a database. And that's how they come up with the conclusions they
reach.

Q But don't you think there's a possibility it can be tampered
with?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, certainly. And there's no question that the
experts are aware of ways that different nations can employ, or
different individuals can employ, or different organizations can employ
various methods to try to fool the experts. But they've seen many of
these before. And I just report to you what the experts have found.

Q It seemed unusual to me in the two tapes that were released
last week, the one that you believe is authentic and the other one
there's some question about, bin Laden referred to Israel -- using the
word "Israel" for the first time. In all the previous tapes he's
always referred to it as an Zionist entity and never actually said
Israel. Doesn't that seem unusual to you?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, my job is just to report to you. I'm
not the expert in listening to these tapes. My job is to report to you
what the findings of the United States government are. And this is
what our experts have found.

Q But given the fact -- I mean, I would think the President
would be concerned that the threat level was raised, that there is
enormous amount of fear in the country associated with these tapes, the
fact that he's still alive, wouldn't there be some effort to question
some of these things?

MR. FLEISCHER: I assure you they did that. That's precisely what
they've done. And I remind you that the threat level was raised prior
to the existence of the tape coming out.

Q Ari, the President of France yesterday suggested that the
European countries that support President Bush's position are infantile
and should have shut up, and basically threatened to blackball
Bulgaria, a U.N. member, and Romania from the EU for supporting Bush.
Do we feel this language is appropriate?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President understands that for some these
are trying times. And the President as he approaches diplomacy will
continue to remember that we are all one alliance and that at the end
of the day we still share values and work together. And the President
is very grateful and appreciative to the leadership and the strength of
the nations of Eastern Europe. They understand what it's like to live
under tyranny and oppression. And the President is very grateful to
have them as new partners and new allies, not only in the war on terror
but in advancing the cause of democracy.

Q And is there a concern that, for example, these kind of
threats from the President of France, for example, might make Bulgaria
less likely to vote for a new resolution, as you are hoping?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President understands and knows full
well that the nations of Eastern Europe are sovereign, are proud, and
are able to make their own judgments and to do the right thing on the
behalf of the cause of freedom. And the United States of America
stands proudly behind the allies in Eastern Europe.

Q As far as the statement in general from the EU, what does the
administration make of that?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the statement by the EU represents an amalgam
of positions. Of course, it talked about this is a final chance for
Saddam Hussein and it stressed the importance of disarmament. And I
think that, by and large, the statement represented much of what the
United States views. Not all the positions that the United States
adheres to were put into the statement. A willingness or a desire to
appeal to a few. But the President, again, when you look at Europe,
it's not very complicated. With a few exceptions -- Germany and France
most notably -- Europe stands united, Europe stands together, Europe
stands shoulder to shoulder with the United States of America.

Q What was the administration's view of what prompted this
effort? There was a lot of talk, including by U.N. Secretary General
Kofi Annan, that it was important to have some show of unity to bring
people together to some extent. What's the administration's view of
why this effort got underway, and why it turned out the way it did?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think one of the things that's notable,
that will be somewhat of a guide into the future, is the United Nations
Security Council last November said this is a final chance. And now
the European Union has said this is a final chance. And unless the
words "final" are so flexible that they have no meaning, this is Saddam
Hussein's final chance, per the United Nations Security Council and per
the European Union. And that's an important statement, if it has
meaning.

Q One last thing for you on the second resolution. Is it your
sense that there will be some effort to put in some sort of guidelines,
some sort of accomplishments that must happen, that Iraq must do in
order for the process to move forward, or will it be a much simpler,
shorter statement?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's going to be a relatively simple and
straightforward resolution. It would, as I indicated earlier, enforce
resolution 1441.

Q On that point then, are you looking for outside of a
resolution language -- is the United States seeking reassurances from
Dr. Blix saying that he will, in the short term, make certain demands
of Iraq, like that the missiles that Dr. Blix says are in violation be
destroyed in a public way, in a specific time frame?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it's interesting, because these aren't
demands, these are legal requirements. This is exactly what the United
Nations Security Council set in motion with Resolution 687, as well as
1441. There are no choices, there are no options. There is only one
way, unless the word of the United Nations has absolutely no value.
After all, if the United Nations finds that you can have proscribed
missiles and get to keep them, because they don't do anything about
them, then is the United Nations really the instrument of disarmament
anymore?

And that's something Dr. Rice talked about over the weekend, about
the importance of the United Nations being effective.

Q And to follow up on Deb's point. During the German
reelection campaign, it was spoken from your position and other
positions around the government about how the relationship had been
poisoned because of Chancellor Schroeder's repeated public statements
against the President. Has the President shared any thoughts of that
nature with regard to President Chirac, and how he seems to be almost
relishing his daily role as countering?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think President Chirac has been very direct
and open with President Bush. He has spoken to him, the two have
spoken with each other on the phone and in person about how they see a
common threat, but have different means to deal with that common
threat, at least up to this point.

And the President respects President Chirac, and he appreciates the
fact that President Chirac told the President exactly what he thought,
and did so privately. And what he said privately was also what he said
publicly.

Q So if Schroeder had called, it would be okay.

Q Do Turkey's financial demands on United States appear to
amount to --

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me -- the issue, again, is what he said
privately is also what he said publicly. And that's why the President
continues to respect President Chirac, even if we have differences on
this.

Q Turkey's financial demands on the United States seem to
amount to tens of billions of dollars. Without going into the
specifics of the negotiation with Turkey, what provision is the
administration making for the non-military cost of this war? Whether
it's foreign aid, eventual rebuilding costs, dealing with refugees, and
so forth, all of which appears to be adding up to a very, very
significant amount of money, none of which seems to be accounted for in
any budgetary proposals or anything else.

MR. FLEISCHER: These are issues that we continue to talk to Turkey
about. And Turkish officials have also had conversations with members
of the Congress, as you would expect, about this. And it remains to be
seen exactly what the ultimate outcome will be. But one of the most
important ways to protect Turkey and make certain that they are --
endure the fewest costs possible was thanks to the action that NATO
took over the weekend to begin to provide defenses to Turkey. Without
those defenses, whatever cost would be borne would be far, far higher.
And the President is grateful that NATO was able now to proceed and
provide the assistance to Turkey that an ally like Turkey deserves.

Q But shouldn't the American people and Congress have a clearer
sense of what the total bill might add up to for all of these things
before we get into this?

MR. FLEISCHER: Dick, I think there's no question that that will be
forthcoming in the event that agreements are reached. But until those
agreements are reached, this remains a matter of some discussion. And
Congress is consulted on this.

MR. FLEISCHER: And I think you received the announcement that we
made, oh, some 10 days ago, about the United States already beginning
the reprogramming of money -- I believe it was in the reprogramming
category -- for humanitarian relief along the areas bordering with
Iraq. The humanitarian issue remains a vital issue in the event of
war. It is part and parcel of America's planning to go in with
humanitarian relief, with food aid, with medical aid to help the Iraqi
people. So all of this is part and parcel of the plan.

Q But at this point, you don't have a global number or
estimate?

MR. FLEISCHER: It's impossible to have a global number or an
estimate for it because that all depends on what the outcome is. So it
very well may be insignificant, it might be significant. It's too hard
to say.

Q But where does it come from?

MR. FLEISCHER: Sarah.

Q Thank you. Change to Miguel Estrada. IS the Miguel Estrada
nomination now dead? What can the President do to bring the nomination
to the Senate floor for a vote? And does he plan to withdraw the
nomination?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, the nomination is alive and kicking. And it
remains to be seen whether or not the obstructionist Democratic
tactics, which are exceedingly rare and never before been successful,
will be continued. I think this is a decision that some Democrats have
to make.

Some Democrats view the lesson of the last election is to go out
and to run as far to the left as possible. The reemergence of the
liberal wing of the Democrat Party is in full swing, which is making
many of the moderates in the Democratic Party increasingly
uncomfortable. And so we will see whether or not the Democrats
continue with the obstructionist tactics. And the President remains
fully, 100 percent dedicated to the confirmation of Miguel Estrada.

Q The BBC, the Stars and Stripes and World Net Daily have all
reported that Rear Admiral Steven Kunkel was relieved of command of the
USS Kitty Hawk battle group -- which is the Navy's largest -- and
publicly charged with an inappropriate relationship with a female
Naval officer, whose identity the Navy is concealing. And my question
deals with the President, not the Pentagon.

Will the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy allow the gender
discriminatory concealment of this female officer, who had this affair
with a married admiral, when the admiral was internationally exposed,
but she is kept concealed?

MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, the Commander-in-Chief believes that this
is a matter that is properly under the purview of the Pentagon.

Q There has been a great deal of media coverage of the growing
number of Democratic presidential candidates, and their rather
desperate struggling with the NAACP effort to boycott the entire state
of South Carolina over the issue of an historical flag. Does the
President intend to ignore this boycott at next February's South
Carolina primary, as recommended by South Carolina's only black
congressman, James Clyburn, or not?

MR. FLEISCHER: One, the President thinks that this matter is a
matter for the people of South Carolina to resolve. Of course, there
is a compromise that was agreed to by all parties in South Carolina
that has resolved this. Others may want to continue to dispute the
compromise agreement that was reached. That's where the matter
stands. And the President, of course, will --

Q But he's not going to obey this boycott? He'll side with
this Democrat -- the only black congressman; isn't that true, Ari?
He'd support that congressman, won't he?

MR. FLEISCHER: Given the fact that even for the Democrat
presidential contenders, their staffs, for example, continue to travel
into and stay overnight in South Carolina, I think you have to look far
and wide to find out how effective the boycott really is. And as you
can take a look at the President's travel patterns in the previous
election when a boycott was also in place to answer you question.

Q Back on the cost issue. If the U.S. does not get a second
resolution, does the President believe that U.S. taxpayers will
disproportionately bear the burden of the reconstruction costs in
Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an
issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather
wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the
Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be
able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.

And given the fact that Iraq right now suffers under sanctions as a
result of Saddam Hussein's repression and Saddam Hussein's attempts to
procure weapons which the United Nations have said are sanctionable --
the fact of the matter is that Iraq's reconstruction will be aided by
the removal of Saddam Hussein because Iraq will then be able to take
its proper place among nations of the world that trades and trades
freely, which all benefits the reconstruction of Iraq.

Q What about all of the post-war costs -- you know,
peacekeeping? Is the fact that, if we don't get a second resolution,
isn't it true that the U.S. is going to disproportionately bear the
burden of paying all of those costs?

MR. FLEISCHER: I want to remind you that even with or without a
second resolution, as the President has said, this will be a rather
large coalition that will go in to disarm Saddam Hussein. But make no
mistake, the President of the United States has stated that the United
States will be committed to the long-term stability of Iraq, and that
we will stay in Iraq as long as necessary -- not one day longer, but as
long as necessary to make certain that the transition in Iraq is a
transition to a unified and peaceful Iraq. The costs of leaving Saddam
Hussein in power far exceed the cost of anything that might involve the
disarmament and the reconstruction of Iraq. I don't think it will be
very long down the road when Iraq does settle in its place as a
different type of nation, a nation without sanctions and a nation that
can become a harbinger of good things in the Middle East.

Q Won't it be a lot more expensive without France and Germany?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think we'll see what ultimately they decide
to do. And, of course, as I mentioned, once sanctions are lifted from
Iraq, that provides a lot more means for the rebuilding and the
reconstruction of Iraq.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, in terms of the war protests, you heard what
the President said himself earlier, where the President said that he
respectfully disagrees. As he said, democracy is beautiful. And these
are the rights of people to protest. Were the people in Iraq to
protest so freely, Saddam Hussein would have been gone from power a
long time ago.

As for the relations with the allies, this is part and parcel of
ongoing diplomacy around the world. It wasn't easy to get the first
resolution last November. There were many nations who disagreed about
the exact language that was going to be used. There were many people
in the United States Congress who said they would never put a
resolution through the United States Congress authorizing the use of
force.

It reminds me also of when the President withdrew from the
anti-ballistic missile treaty to pursue the missile defense initiative,
when many people said, you can't do that, we will oppose you in doing
that -- particularly throughout Europe. And people said at that time
that, if you pursue what the President is proposing it will lead to an
increased militarization around the world, when the case of missile
defense the exact opposite turned out to be the case. We have better
relations with Russia and fewer offensive weapons as a result.

So the President approaches all these issues of opposition in a
matter of, one, the importance of standing on principle and, two,
respecting those who disagree, but continuing to lead if he thinks it
will lead to peace. And I think he's had a pretty good track record of
standing on principle and leading in the direction that has helped
formulate peace around the world.

Q Is he getting a little frustrated with all this?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think the President understands when he went
to the United Nations last fall, he set this path in motion. If the
President wanted to act unilaterally, the United States could have
acted unilaterally last fall. And this was a decision President Bush
made to bring the United Nations into this, front and center. And that
is where we remain.

Now, the question is, is the United Nations getting uncomfortable
seeing threats to peace they do not control. Is the United Nations
getting uncomfortable with the fact that the military mission to remove
Slobodan Milosevic had to be done outside the United Nations Security
Council auspices, because the United Nations Security Council could not
face up to the threats.

These are the issues the United Nations Security Council has to ask
itself, are they comfortable with the role the Security Council is
playing in the world, when they were set up, by design, to replace the
League of Nations, so they didn't meet the same fate of an organization
of international states that was not up to the challenge or up to the
task.

The history in Kosovo is not a good one for the United Nations
Security Council. The President hopes that won't be repeated.

Q When the President was asked about -- for his reaction to the
demonstrations over the weekend, he said, evidently some in the world
don't view Saddam Hussein as a risk to peace. In fact, the argument
that most, if not -- well, the vast majority of the people who were in
the streets over the weekend make, is not that Saddam isn't a threat,
but that they simply disagree with the President over how to deal with
that threat. Does the President think those people were being
insincere? Does he not think that that's their real argument?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, he thinks that -- he respects them, but he
thinks that their position is wrong, that the real threat to peace is
Saddam Hussein and his possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Q Well, didn't he mischaracterize the main argument of the
people on the other side? They don't seem to disagree that Saddam is a
threat or a risk to peace --

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think that was very visible, if that's the
case.

Q So you don't think that that's their real argument?

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think that was a visible message, if that's
the case.

Q Ari, this morning on the topic of the protests you drew a
parallel to the early '80s protests in Europe against the IMF
missiles. But these protests also occurred in Brazil, in Hong Kong, in
Seoul, throughout the Arab world, in Canada. Do you think those are
also sort of this throwback to the early '80s?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, my remarks about Europe and the protests in
Europe were directly analogous to the situation in the early 1980s in
Europe.

Q What about Asia, Canada and the rest of the world?

MR. FLEISCHER: Just as the President said. It's the right of
people to protest, wherever around the world they so choose.

Q Ari, you put out this bibliography after we asked about the
recommendations for precautions if there is an attack. It made for
some interesting weekend reading, I guess. But the most recent
reference is seven years old; and one study from 1996 is based entirely
on emergencies at U.S. chemical stockpiles, not the dangers that come
from the kind of threats we've been talking about today. One of them
is 20 years old, it's apparently out of print, couldn't find it.

Given all the new delivery systems, the weapons, the threats that
we've been told about, is there not any newer research that the
administration is relying on?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think Secretary Ridge addressed this Friday, when
he talked about the importance of people to be prepared, but not
necessarily to start putting plastic and duct tape up around their
house or their windows. What's important, in this age of terror, is
that people have in their homes the tools that they may need in case it
ever does become necessary -- such things as radios that operate on
batteries, such things as water, the other items that Secretary Ridge
addressed, including the items that Secretary Ridge described.

So it's part of the prudent precautions and planning. And I just
want to remind you, also, as people deal with the threats that we're
facing in this age of terror, it's not the first time that generations
of Americans have experienced threats on our homeland and have had to
deal with it. All you have to do is drive two hours east of
Washington, D.C., to the beaches of Delaware, and you'll find on the
beaches pillboxes that were manned by American machine gunners in case
the United States' shores were attacked. Those pillboxes still stand.
And the American people back then understand that there could be
threats to our country and the government's job was to provide as much
information and be forthcoming about what the nature of the threats
were and measures of protection that people could take.

Q You maybe missed the point of the question.

MR. FLEISCHER: Go ahead.

Q I was asking why this research is all so old when so many
other things have developed since 1996, which is the most recent thing
cited here?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, first of all, 1996 is not old; 1996 is
current. And if the information --

Q Well, weren't talking about dirty bombs, things like that, in
1996

MR. FLEISCHER: -- and if the information is valid, it doesn't
matter how old the bibliography is and whether it spans from 20 years
to six years ago, it can also show how accurate it is over time. So
the presence of old information being 20 years of a bibliography
actually shows how consistent the information is. And I think that's
why the Department of Homeland Security briefed it.

Q One other question. One of the studies points to questions
about the thickness of plastic, the type of duct tape, whether it's
better to use wet towels under doorways or duct tape under doorways.
Is this plan that Ridge is going to announce tomorrow going to clear
these kinds of things up and tell people exactly what to use? He
seemed to back away -- well, you did, too, just a moment ago, from this
duct tape and plastic thing. There's a lot of confusion out there,
Ari.

MR. FLEISCHER: Nobody's backing away. What people have said is
that just like a tornado, just like a hurricane, it's best to be
prepared and have the supplies in the event the government then advises
people to take the next step and to employ them. But if you don't have
them and if the government urges people to take additional action, you
cannot take those steps. And so the message remains exactly the same.

And I think, frankly, it's a sign of the fact that the country does
listen and wants to get more information. Many times reporters have
said, well, what can individuals do? What more can individuals do?
Tell us. And the Department of Homeland Security has done that. And
many people are listening and paying close attention. And that's
good.

Q A couple questions on the resolution. I'm unclear on one
point, is the administration committed to going forward with a second
resolution? Could it be this week? Could it be next week? Could it
be never?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, the administration is committed to going
forward. The administration is continuing to work with our allies
about the exact language and drafting of it. And as I indicated, it
could be this week, it could be next.

Q And then you suggested that France and Germany are more or
less alone in Europe. How would you read the Security Council at this
point? Is the United States swimming upstream? Or --

MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's too -- I think it's too soon to say.
Very often at the Security Council, people keep their powder generally
dry until almost the day of the vote -- if not the day of the vote.
And so I think it's clear that Germany will be "no" vote no matter
what. And it remains to be seen about many of the other member
states. And that's why it's important to keep talking to them. That's
why I also am not going to get into any of specific words that might be
in a resolution because we're working that quietly and privately and
diplomatically with those countries.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think what's going to emerge will be a
government of the Iraqi people that comes from both inside Iraq and
outside Iraq. There are no shortage of people who are dedicated to a
different route for Iraq. And I think also one of the great issues
that will be seen -- if this does come to war -- is how, when people
have the ability to be free, they exercise that right to be free. The
Iraqi people have lived under tyranny and under dictatorship. And as
the nations of East Europe have shown us just recently, when the yolk
of dictatorship is removed, people's God-given rights to freedom
emerge. And the President believes that that will be the case in
Iraq.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, certainly. And that's why the President has
talked to different leaders and continues to do so. I reported to you
last week his phone call with President Chirac. And the President will
continue to do that. And the President understands that even when
people take different opinions, different positions, at the end of the
day, because our values between Europe and America are so strong, that
even for nations where we disagree, the relations will remain strong.
They can get tested.

Our alliance has been through tests before. France is not a
military member of NATO, they're not part of the defense policy
committee, because Charles DeGaulle removed France from it in the
1960s. The alliance has survived after that move by France. And there
have been strains before in the alliance, there will be strains in the
future. But in the end, we will remain an alliance because of the
shared values that we hold. In the end, one way or another, Saddam
Hussein will be disarmed.

Q What about the protesters? Is there any reason to listen to
the message they have, even if he doesn't take it into account?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President addressed that earlier.

Q The U.N. is predicting that any war on Iraq could displace
more than a million Iraqi civilians. They also say that thousands of
children would face starvation. Is the removal of Saddam Hussein worth
that price?

MR. FLEISCHER: The question is, Saddam Hussein, left to his own
devices, how many people will he kill, how many Iraqis has he killed
already? You all know that more than a million died in the war between
Iraq and Iran.

Q Ari, I want to follow-up on a question earlier. If it would
be more persuasive for Americans to hear the President describe in more
detail what U.S. involvement in a post-Saddam world would mean for the
Iraqi people, what it would cost, how involved we would be, why is he
waiting for a decision to be made -- I'm not sure if it's inevitable,
why is he not talking to the American people now about that aspect of
the benefits that he sees?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the President has talked about this
in the past, when he talks about freedom and the fact that he is
confident that any outcome in Iraq will lead to freedom for the Iraqi
people. And you've heard it expressed from numerous other people in
the administration, notably Steve Hadley, in a speech before the
Council on Foreign Relations last week up in New York. And you have
not heard the final word from the President on this topic, too, I
remind you.

Q But he would wait until a military strike begins, to talk to
the American people about the post-war effect, or post-war benefits?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I would just remind you also, when the allies
landed in France in June of 1944, we didn't know what the future
government of Nazi Germany would be, but we knew the world would be a
better place and a safer place as a result of beating the Nazis in the
campaign in which they launched in bringing the war to the soil of
Europe, to free the people of France and to free the people of Europe,
without a crystal-clear conclusion about what the future of Nazi
Germany would be.

And so this remains an important topic. It is something you will
hear about in the future. But it's impossible to say with precision
now what the future will hold, just as it was impossible to say on June
6, 1944.

Q Last question. When could we see the President in maybe a
news conference?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, obviously he took a bunch of questions this
morning, and he'll continue to be accessible. And you never know when
a news conference can break out. We'll keep you posted.

Q Any reaction to the new elected President of Cyprus, Tassos
Papadopoulos? Is your government is expecting a solution to the
problem by February 28th?

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me see if we have anything specific on Cyprus,
and we'll post that.